Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Affective Disorders

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jad

Research report

Social anxiety in the general population: Introducing abbreviated

versions of SIAS and SPS
Nina Kupper , Johan Denollet
CoRPS Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic diseases, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 June 2011
Received in revised form 15 August 2011
Accepted 15 August 2011
Available online 8 September 2011
Keywords:
Social interaction anxiety
Social phobia
Confirmatory factor analysis
General population

a b s t r a c t
Background: Social anxiety is characterized by the experience of stress, discomfort and fear in
social situations, and is associated with substantial personal and societal burden. Two questionnaires exist that assess the aspects of social anxiety, i.e. social interaction anxiety
(SIAS) and social phobia (SPS). There is no agreement in literature on the dimensionality of
social anxiety. Further, the length of a questionnaire may negatively affect response rates
and participation at follow-up occasions.
Aim: To explore the structure of social anxiety in the general population, and to examine
psychosocial and sociodemographic correlates. Our second aim was to construct abbreviated
versions of SIAS and SPS that can be easily used and with minimal burden.
Method: A total of 1598 adults from the general Dutch population completed a survey asking
information on social anxiety, mood and demographics. Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses as well as reliability analysis with item-total statistics were performed.
Results: Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a 3-factor structure for social phobia, and a 2-factor
structure for the SIAS, with the second factor containing both reversely scored items. The abbreviated versions of SPS (11 items) and SIAS (10 items) show excellent discriminant and construct
validity (Cronbach's = .90 and .92), while specificity analysis showed that gender, marital status
and educational level (SIAS10: p b .0005; SPS11: p b .0005) are important determinants of social
anxiety.
Conclusion: In the general population, social interaction anxiety and social phobia are two aspects
of a higher-order factor of social anxiety. Social anxiety is validly captured by the short versions
of SPS and SIAS, reducing the questionnaire burden for participants in epidemiological and biobehavioral research.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Social anxiety arises from the prospect or presence of interpersonal evaluation in real or imagined social settings and is
characterized by the experience of stress, discomfort and fear
in social situations. This leads to a deliberate avoidance of such

Corresponding author at: CoRPS Center of Research on Psychology

in Somatic diseases, Department of medical psychology, Tilburg University, PO box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. Tel.: + 31 466 2956;
fax: + 31 466 2167.
E-mail address: h.m.kupper@uvt.nl (N. Kupper).
0165-0327/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.08.014

situations and to the fear of receiving negative evaluations of

others (Stein, 2006; Watson and Friend, 1969). Relatively low
levels of social anxiety are commonly experienced by people
engaging in social interaction, however for patients with a social
anxiety disorder, the fear can be extremely intense, joined by
sympathetic arousal, evident in symptoms like blushing, trembling, heart palpitations, and sweating (Blanco et al., 2001). Social anxiety represents a considerable personal and societal
burden because of its association with impaired working- and
private relationships (Blanco et al., 2001; Schneier et al.,
1994), poor family functioning (Blanco et al., 2001; Schneier
et al., 1994) and onset of psychiatric conditions (Blanco et al.,
2001; Magee et al., 1996).

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

Social anxiety is a commonly subdivided into social interaction anxiety and social performance anxiety or social phobia
(Blanco et al., 2001; Liebowitz, 1987). Two companion questionnaires have been developed specifically to address these
two facets: the 19-item Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS;
(Mattick and Clarke, 1998)) which assesses anxiety while
interacting with others and the 20-item Social Phobia Scale
(SPS; (Mattick and Clarke, 1998)) which assesses a general
scrutiny concern to do with being observed by others, or
when performing a task, such as writing, drinking or eating in
public. However, there is no agreement in literature on the dimensionality of social anxiety, potentially owing to differences
in study design, method choices and sample characteristics
(some are social anxiety disorder patient samples, some are
student samples). While some authors, including the original
authors, have reported that the SIAS and SPS involve two distinct dimensions of social anxiety analyzing both questionnaires together (Heidenreich et al., 2011; Mattick and Clarke,
1998; Osman et al., 1998), others proposed interaction anxiety,
anxiety about being observed by others, and fear that others
will notice anxiety symptoms to be three dimensions of social
anxiety, with the third containing the positively worded
items of the SIAS in two studies (Carleton et al., 2009; Habke
et al., 1997), and one study reporting that the positivelyworded items of the SIAS belonged to the interaction anxiety
factor (Safren et al., 1998).
For SIAS specifically, a three-factor structure has been
reported in Spanish adolescents (Zubeidat et al., 2007), while
another Spanish study reported SIAS (and SPS) to have a onefactor structure (Olivares et al., 2001), essentially replicating
the originally proposed factor structure (Mattick and Clarke,
1998).
Rodebaugh and co-workers reported a two-factor structure
for the SIAS, the latter owing to the positively worded items not
belonging to the social anxiety construct, but rather to extraversion (Rodebaugh et al., 2006, 2007). The most recent
study, using advanced statistical techniques, identified four factors for SIAS, i.e. presentational concerns, negative emotional
reactions when interacting, problems initiating contact and informal interactional concerns, with the positively worded
items being allocated to this final factor (Eidecker et al.,
2010). Hence, more research on the dimensional properties of
both aspects of social anxiety is needed.
In addition, the length of a questionnaire (39 items in total)
may negatively affect response rates and participation at followup occasions (Edwards et al., 2004; Jepson et al., 2005). One previous study has examined the appropriateness of a reduced
number of items in both SIAS and SPS scales and reported a
14-item version, assessing social interaction anxiety (5 items),
fear of overt evaluation (6 items) and fear of attracting attention
(3 items), to measure social anxiety equally well as the original,
longer versions (Carleton et al., 2009). However, the SPS factors
in this study were not in keeping with the original theory of
what SPS is intended to assess (Mattick and Clarke, 1998). Finally, no Dutch validation data is yet available for the SIAS and SPS
(Van Balkom et al., 2004). Therefore, the aim of the present
study was to examine the validity and dimensional structure
of social anxiety in the general population and to construct
valid abbreviated versions of the SIAS and SPS that can be easily
used in epidemiological and biobehavioral research, to assess
these dimensions with minimal response burden.

91

2. Methods
2.1. Participants and procedure
The sample comprised a random selection of 1598 adults
from the general Dutch population residing in the Southern
provinces of the Netherlands (population of approx. 4 million
out of 16.6 million citizens of the Netherlands in total). Quota
sampling was applied to ensure that different age and gender
groups were equally represented in the sample. This meant
that equal numbers of men and women were sampled in
the different age decades (2080).
Research assistants (RAs) were responsible for distributing
the questionnaires and were instructed to collect an equal
amount of questionnaires from each age and gender subcohort,
without further specification of educational or income level.
RAs were relatively free in choosing who to approach and
how to approach them (personally or by phone), as long as participants were not employees of the university or friends. After
explaining the purpose of the study, participants received an informed consent form and a questionnaire either in person or by
mail, which were sent back to the research assistants in closed
envelopes. The questionnaires were entered into the database
by others, guaranteeing anonymity. Returned questionnaires
did not contain any explicit identifiers (i.e., names) but rather,
were coded by number for purposes of data collection tracking.
Approval for this study was obtained from the institutional
ethics advisory committee (protocol number: 2006/1101).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Sociodemographic information
Demographic variables included age, gender, partner status
and educational level. We categorized educational level into
two levels higher and lower education, in which lower education was defined as completing primary school, pre-vocational
education or high school, while higher education was defined
as completing vocational education or college or university.
2.2.2. Social anxiety
The social interaction anxiety questionnaire (SIAS) and social phobia questionnaire (SPS) are two validated self-report
questionnaires with respectively 19 and 20 items rated on a
5-point Likert scale (04), with scores ranging from 0 to 76
and from 0 to 80 respectively (Mattick and Clarke, 1998). A
translation-back translation procedure was used to translate
the questionnaires into Dutch using native speakers of the
Dutch and English language from an official translation bureau
(Talencentrum VU) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
2.2.3. BFNE-II
The revised brief fear of negative evaluation questionnaire
(BFNE-II) assesses apprehension and distress arising from concerns about being judged disparagingly or hostilely by others.
BFNE-II is a validated, 11-item self-report questionnaire with
only straightforwardly worded items that should be answered
on a 5-point Likert scale (04) (Carleton et al., 2006), with
total scores ranging from 0 to 44. The questionnaire has demonstrated excellent reliability ( = .95) (Carleton et al., 2006). A
translationback translation procedure was used to translate
the questionnaires into Dutch using native speakers of the

92

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

Dutch and English language from an official translation bureau

(Talencentrum VU) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
2.2.4. BDI-10
The BDI-10 is an abbreviated version of the original BDI
(Beck and Steer, 1993), scored on a 3-point Likert scale from
0 to 2 (range total score 020), and comprising of the core dimensions of depressive symptoms, i.e. sadness, pessimism,
negative self-view and lack of satisfaction/energy (Denollet
et al., 2009).
2.2.5. HADS
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Zigmond and
Snaith, 1983) consists of two subscales, a 7-item anxiety and
7-item depression scale that are answered on a 4-point Likert
scale from 0 to 3 with a total score range of 021. The HADS validly assesses anxiety and depression in the general population
(Crawford et al., 2001; Hinz and Brhler, 2011; Quintana et al.,
2003; Spinhoven et al., 1997) and has been validated in Dutch
(Spinhoven et al., 1997).
We further used a widely accepted, optimal cut-off for the
HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A 12) (Bjelland et al., 2002)
to establish the probability of the presence of an anxiety disorder. In our sample, 7% (n= 112) of participants were eligible
for a probable anxiety disorder classification. In a subgroup
analysis, we contrasted this high-anxiety group to the rest of
the sample.
2.3. Statistical analysis
2.3.1. Exploratory factor analysis
Factor analysis was used to determine the underlying factor structure of each scale, with the purpose of replicating the
factor structure of the original scales. We first performed a
principal component analysis (PCA) with oblimin rotation.
Depending on the correlation of the emerging factors, the
PCA was repeated using varimax rotation (if r b .10). In addition to the factor analysis on the whole population, we also
did a separate analysis for the 112 subjects with a probable
anxiety disorder. Because the extraction of factors is relatively arbitrary, we described two criteria for the optimal number
of extracted factors: the Kaiser criterion (number of factors
with eigenvalue N 1), and Cattell's scree test (identify spot in
scree plot where the rapid decrease of eigenvalues levels off).
2.3.2. Conrmatory factor analysis
The structural equation modeling program AMOS 18 with
full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation was
used to run confirmatory factor analyses for SPS and SIAS aiming to test the fit of the theoretical three-factor structure for
SPS and one-factor structure for SIAS (Mattick and Clarke,
1998) and to compare this to the proposed factor structures
from exploratory factor analyses as well as some of the proposed factor structures from previous publications. Model fit
was assessed using multiple indicators. Because of our large
sample size, we did not use the 2 statistic as significance of
this statistic is directly related to sample size regardless of the
fit of the model. The root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), the normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit
index (CFI) were used to judge the fit of the individual models.
In addition, between-group analyses were performed for the

participants with a high anxiety score (HADS-A 12) compared

to the rest of the sample with lower anxiety levels. Significance
of group differences was assessed by a log likelihood ratio
test. For comparison between models (3-factor vs. 2-factor vs.
1-factor) we used Akaike's information Criterion (AIC) to determine which factor structure fit the data best, as the different
factor models are unnested. A lower AIC value indicates a better
fit to the data.
2.3.3. Reliability analysis with item-total statistics
Respecting the theoretical basis of the social phobia scale,
in that it should include items regarding a general scrutiny
concern to do with being observed by others, items regarding
specific fears, and items concerning the fear of being viewed
sick, ill, odd or out of control, we constructed an abbreviated
version of SPS using item-total statistics from the Reliability
analysis. Item-total statistics provides a list of alternative
Cronbach's 's based on the situation if that item would
have been dropped from the analysis. We then systematically
dropped less fitting items in terms of internal consistency;
items from the three facets with the lowest item-total correlation and little or no change in Cronbach's alpha (maximum
of .01 per item if the item would be dropped) were excluded.
If two items had similar statistics, both authors agreed on
which item to retain based on the content of the item. For
SIAS we have followed a similar procedure.
2.3.4. Factor analysis of the two abbreviated questionnaires
In order to establish whether social interaction anxiety and
social phobia, based on the abbreviated SIAS and SPS, are two
separate constructs, we entered the resulting items from the
reliability analysis into a second factor analysis. PCA with oblimin rotation was performed. Depending on the correlation of
the emerging factors, the PCA was repeated using varimax rotation (if r b .10).
2.3.5. Discriminant and construct validity
To assess discriminant validity of the abbreviated versions
of SPS and SIAS, we performed a MANOVA comparing the subsample of individuals with high levels of anxiety (HADSA 12) with the larger subsample of individuals with a moderate to low anxiety score (HADS-A 11). We assessed construct
validity by correlating total scores of the abbreviated versions
of SIAS and SPS with total scores of generalized anxiety
(HADS), depression (HADS), fear of negative evaluation
(BFNE-II), and depression (BDI-10). Fisher's r-to-z transformations were used to determine whether SIAS10 and SPS 11 were
more strongly associated with FNE than with depression or
general anxiety. A second order factor analysis (PCA with oblimin rotation) was then performed on the total scores of each
questionnaire to establish the presence of higher-order factors.
2.3.6. Specicity analysis
Gender and age differences in SIAS and SPS scores were
explored, and as well as their relation with educational
level [lower education (primary school, pre-vocational, or
high school) vs. higher education (vocational, college, university)], and social situation (with/without partner).
All analyses were performed using SPSS 17.0 and AMOS 19.
In SPSS, an alpha level of .05 was used to determine significance.

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

3. Results
3.1. Study sample
Participants were on average 46.5 years of age (range 20
80, SD = 16) and 50.9% were male. The majority of the sample
was in a relationship (81%) at the time of the survey and 72%
was married (60%) or were living together. Thirty-three percent
of the participants completed higher education (college or university). With respect to marital status and educational attainment, our study sample was very comparable to the general
Dutch population for which these percentages were essentially
the same (i.e. 31% higher education and 58% married, Dutch
Central Bureau for Statistics, 2005).
3.2. Dimensions of social anxiety
3.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis
PCA showed that while the eigenvalue criterion indicated a
two-factor structure for the SPS, the scree test only indicated
the presence of one factor, with the first factor explaining 42%
of variance in SPS (eigenvalue = 8.5), and the second factor
6% (eigenvalue = 1.3). The first factor contained all items except 1, 2 and 3, which were clustered in the second factor.
Two of the three latter items do not belong to the same content
domain, as items 1 and 3 are about being observed by others
and item 2 is about performing a task. The two extracted factors
correlated .61.
For the SIAS, PCA showed that three factors had an eigenvalue greater than one, while the scree test again indicated a onefactor structure, with the first factor explaining 44% of the variance in SIAS (eigenvalue= 8.1) and containing the majority of
SIAS items (1, 3, 9, 1119), asking people about presentational
concerns and problems initiating social contact. The second factor (eigenvalue= 1.9) explained an additional 7% and contained
the two negatively worded items (8 and 10). Finally, the third
factor (eigenvalue=1.3) explained an additional 5% and contained items 2, 4, 57 which are all items concerning negative
emotions when interacting (scree plots available on request).
The three extracted factors correlated .54 (factors 1 and 3), .21
(factors 1 and 2) and .17 (factor 2 and 3) respectively.
When analyzing the subsample with high anxiety, a similar pattern emerged, with the first factor explaining 50% of
variance in SPS and 50% of the variance in SIAS, and subsequent factors for both constructs explaining b8%. The internal
consistency of both SPS and SIAS was high, with Cronbach's
alphas of .90 and .92 respectively.
3.2.2. Conrmatory factor analysis
SPS the confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the
three-factor structure as described by Mattick and colleagues
(1998) fit the data better than a unidimensional model of SPS
or a two-factor model as suggested by our own EFA results as
well as a previous study by Carleton and co-workers (Carleton
et al., 2009) (see Table 1). Group differences were apparent as
equalizing factor loadings across anxiety groups caused a significant deterioration of the model. Fig. 1 visualizes the final
model for the SPS including standardized factor loadings for
the low anxious (black) and high anxious (gray) population
subgroups.

93

SIAS confirmatory factor analysis showed that a two factor model, in which the two reversely scored items make up
the second factor (Rodenbaugh's model), provided the best fit
for the data as compared to the theoretical one-factor model
(Mattick and Clarke, 1998), the three-factor solution proposed
by our own EFA or the 4-factor model proposed by Eidecker
et al. (2010)) (see Table 1). In addition, model fitting showed
that there were significant differences in factor loadings between the low anxious and high anxious population subgroups.
Fig. 2 visualizes the final model for the SIAS including standardized factor loadings for the low anxious (black) and high anxious (gray) sample subgroups.
3.2.3. Descriptive information
Table 2 shows that our community sample scored relatively
low on all items concerning social phobia, and almost all items
(except reversely scored items) concerning social interaction
anxiety. Item-total correlations (Table 1) for SPS showed that
all items were moderately to highly correlated with the SPS
total score (range .44.78). For SIAS, the reversely scored
items (#8 and 10) correlated only modestly (.37 and .38)
with the SIAS total score, while item-total correlations for the
other items ranged between .48 and .79.
3.3. Constructing abbreviated measures
3.3.1. SPS
Item-total statistics indicated that removing items 2, 3, 5, 8,
11, 13, and 17 from facet one (general scrutiny concern to do
with being observed by others), item 1 from facet two (specific
fears) and item 9 from facet three (being viewed as sick, ill or
odd) decreased Cronbach's alpha from .89 to .86 for facet 1,
and from .77 to .68 for facet 3, and increased Cronbach's
alpha from .60 to .62 for facet 2. Item-total correlations of the
excluded items were b.56 for facet 1, .33 for facet 2 and .60
for facet 3. The decision to remove item 9 from facet three
was based on both statistics and content. The abbreviated SPS
item list (from hereon named SPS 11) is presented in Table 3a,
and shows high reliability (Cronbach's alpha= .90). Rerunning
the initial factor analysis resulted in a 1-factor model as indicated by both the eigenvalue criterion and the scree test, explaining 50% of variance in SPS. Hence, scores on the selected 11
items were added to comprise an SPS11 sum score.
3.3.2. SIAS
Item-total statistics further showed that removing the
items with the lowest item-total correlations (i.e. # 1, 35, 8,
10, 12, 13, and 19, which had item-total correlations of b.57)
further increased Cronbach's alpha from .90 to .92, indicating
that the abbreviated item list is at least as equally suited to assess social interaction anxiety as the original one. The abbreviated SIAS item list is presented in Table 3b. Rerunning the
initial exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 1-factor model
as indicated by both the eigenvalue criterion and the scree
test, explaining 57% of variance in SIAS. Thus, scores on the selected 10 items of the abbreviated SIAS were added to comprise
a SIAS10 sumscore.
We then factor analyzed the 21 items belonging to the
shortened versions SIAS 10 and SPS11 in a higher-order factor
analysis to examine whether social interaction anxiety and social phobia are actually separate constructs in the general

94

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

Table 1
Results from the confirmatory factor analyses for the SPS and the SIAS.

NFI

CFI

RMSEA

AIC

.84

.87

.053

2061.025

.84

.87

.052

2033.025

.86

.88

.050

1898.788

.86

.82

.049

1877.762

.85

.82

.053

1915.321

.87

.90

.050

1747.860

.87
.90

.89
.92

.050
.044

1787.640
1442.272

.90
.80

.92
.82

.043
.065

1463.416
2586.072

.81

.87

.064

2493.321

.69
.72

.72
.73

.056
.083

8885.994
4842.180

SPS
1-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (following Mattick and Clarke, 1998)
2-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (following own EFA results)
2-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (following Carleton et al., 2009)
3-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (facets according to Mattick and Clarke, 1998)
3-factor model & equal factor loadings for subpopulations
SIAS
1-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (following Mattick and Clarke, 1998)
1-factor model & equal factor loadings for subpopulations
2-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (following Rodebaugh et al., 2006)
2-factor model & equal factor loadings for subpopulations
3-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (following own EFA results)
4-factor model & different factor loadings for anxious and low anxious
subpopulations (following Eidecker et al., 2010)
Higher-order factor analysis**
Higher-order social anxiety construct ( four sub-factors; 37 items)
Higher-order social anxiety construct (21 items)

Best fit

* Best fitting model (shaded gray); ** the factor containing the two reversed items was excluded from this analysis. Best fit for the higher-order factor models was
determined by 2 difference test as the number of parameters differed between both models. NFI: normed fit index, CFI: comparative fit index, RMSEA: root mean
square error of approximation, AIC: Akaike's information criterion.

eigenvalue test suggested the presence of two factors, but

since this test tends to overestimate the number of factors
and the second factor only explains an additional 6%, unidimensionality is more likely. This finding indicates that in the
general population, both questionnaires seem to assess the
same higher-order construct of social anxiety. Splitting the
data based on whether an anxiety disorder was to be expected

population. In confirmatory factor analysis adding the higherorder factor of social anxiety to the model did not improve
the fit of the model, although this model fit the data better
than the higher-order factor model including all items of the
original SIAS and SPS (Table 1). We therefore turned to exploratory factor analysis and based on the scree test, we identified a
unidimensional factor structure for SPS and SIAS items. The
e

.09 .29 .25 .22 .38 .64 .33 .55 .51 .70 .32 .44 .31 .52 .27 .41 .47 .58
SPS2

SPS3

SPS4 SPS5

SPS6

SPS8 SPS11 SPS13 SPS1

5

.50

.29
.53

.47

.62 .58
.80 .74

.71
.84

.57
.66

.55
.72

.52
.64

.69
.76

.34 .58 .26 .54

.47 .52

SPS1 SPS17

SPS1

.57 .84 .16 .21 .47 .47 .31.40 .27 .32

SPS2
0

.51
.69
.76
.59
.76 .73
.72
.91

SPS
1

SPS
7

.40 .68
.45 .68

SPS1

SPS1

.56
.64

.52
.57

SPS9 SPS1

SPS1
4

.59
.72

.70
.73

.67
.82

Loss of
control

Specific
fears

General scrutiny
concerns to do
with others

.35 .52 .49 .53 .44 .67

.91
.93
.85
.99

.86
.84

Fig. 1. Factor structure of the Social Phobia Scale. Note: Numbers represent standardized factor loadings in the low anxious (black)/high anxious (gray) general
population. Boldfaced boxes represent items retained in the shortened version of SPS based on reliability analysis.

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

e

.33 .44 .40 .41 .29 .33 .16 .31 .24 .52 .48 .70 .32 .43 .42 .61 .43 .65

.29 .43 .36 .39

.60 .71

.59 .67

95
e

.46 57 .48 .53 .59 .79 .27 .52 .43 .30 .49 .33

SIAS1 SIAS2 SIAS3 SIAS4 SIAS5 SIAS6 SIAS7 SIAS9 SIAS11 SIAS12 SIAS13 SIAS14 SIAS15 SIAS16 SIAS17 SIAS18 SIAS19 SIAS8 SIAS10
.57
.66

.63
.54
.58
.64

.40
.56

.49
.72

.69
.84

.56
.65

.65
.78

.66
.81

.54
.66

.60
.71

.78
.84

.77
.82

.68
.76

69
.73

Social
interaction
anxiety

.77
.52
.72
.89

.65
.55

.70
.57

Reversely
scored items

-.31
-.10

Fig. 2. Factor structure of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. Note: Numbers represent standardized factor loadings in the low anxious (black)/high anxious
(gray) general population. Boldfaced boxes represent items retained in the shortened version of SIAS based on reliability analysis.

did not alter the results, as both the anxiety disorder group and
non-anxious group revealed a one factor structure for the items
of SIAS and SPS.

3.4. Discriminant and construct validity

To assess discriminant validity of the abbreviated SPS11 and
SIAS10 scales, we performed a MANOVA contrasting individuals
with high anxiety levels (HADS-A12) versus those with moderate to low anxiety levels. High-anxious participants scored
Table 2
Means (SD) and item-total correlations for SPS and SIAS items for the total
sample.

Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
a

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
9
10*
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Mean SPS item

score (SD)

r SPS total
score

Mean SIAS item

score (SD)

r SIAS total
score

0.40
0.57
0.76
0.26
0.46
0.64
0.27
0.18
0.22
0.09
0.26
0.26
0.67
0.30
0.36
0.25
0.18
0.65
0.08
0.53

.48
.44
.57
.69
.64
.75
.69
.64
.63
.58
.65
.69
.62
.71
.74
.66
.62
.72
.51
.78

0.75
0.36
0.94
0.21
0.13
0.36
0.26
2.15
0.42
1.65
0.50
0.63
0.56
0.65
0.62
0.36
0.43
0.45
0.45

.63
.65
.61
.48
.57
.74
.62
.38
.70
.37
.69
.60
.63
.80
.78
.70
.72
.79
.60

(0.76)
(0.88)
(0.85)
(0.63)
(0.76)
(0.82)
(0.63)
(0.49)
(0.56)
(0.37)
(0.60)
(0.57)
(0.95)
(0.67)
(0.65)
(0.55)
(0.50)
(0.84)
(0.36)
(0.77)

Reversely scored items of the SIAS.

(0.80)
(0.67)
(0.91)
(0.51)
(0.43)
(0.65)
(0.56)
(1.27)
(0.71)
(1.18)
(0.74)
(0.84)
(0.83)
(0.79)
(0.78)
(0.67)
(0.74)
(0.74)
(0.74)

significantly higher on both SIAS10 (F1, 1534 =156.136,

pb .0005) and SPS11 (F1, 1532 =215.998, pb .0005), indicating
that SPS11 and SIAS10 successfully discriminate between these
samples. Fig. 3 shows means and standard deviations of SIAS10
and SPS11 for these subsamples.
Correlations between the abbreviated SIAS10 and SPS11 and
scores on generalized anxiety, depression and fear of negative
evaluation are presented in Table 4, generally displaying moderate to high intercorrelations. SIAS10 and SPS11 correlated significantly higher with the other social measure, i.e. fear of negative
evaluation compared to the measures of general anxiety or depression (HADS, BDI-10; z N 6.4; pb .0005). In the participants
with high anxiety, SIAS10 and SPS11 scores also were significantly
higher correlated with FNE than with general anxiety and depression as assessed with the HADS and the BDI-10 (z N 1.9;
pb .03), except for the difference in correlations between
SIAS10/NFE and SIAS10/BDI-10 (z=0.96; p=.17). As expected,
SIAS10 and SPS11 correlated highly with each other (r=.88 in
high anxious participants and r=.76 in low-moderate anxious
participants).

3.5. Specicity analysis

While SIAS10 did not correlate significantly with age (r=
.001), SPS11 scores slightly but significantly decreased with age
(r=.06, p=.03). There were significant gender differences,
with women scoring higher than men on SIAS (t=7.547,
pb .0005) and SPS (t=5.457, pb .0005). In addition, persons
that had a partner reported lower social interaction anxiety
(t=2.771, p=.006) and social phobia (t=2.087, p=.037),
compared to participants without a partner. Finally, people
with lower education had higher levels of social anxiety
(SIAS10: t547.6 =5.292, pb .0005; SPS11 t545.2 =3.990, pb .0005)
(see Table 5).

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

5
6

12
14

15

16

9
10

18
19

11

20

.63
.62
.63
.70
.58
.68
.50
.77
.90

4. Discussion
The current findings show that in the Dutch general population, social interaction anxiety as assessed by the SIAS has a
two-factor structure, while social phobia as assessed with the
SPS shows a three-factor structure, while both are part of a
higher-order factor of social anxiety. These findings confirm
the notion put forward by the scale constructors (Mattick and
Clarke, 1998) and confirmed in Spanish adolescents (Zubeidat
et al., 2007), Spanish students (Olivares et al., 2001; Osman
et al., 1998) and German psychiatric outpatients seeking behavioral therapy (Heidenreich et al., 2011) that SIAS taps into
a single construct of social interaction fear, but also support
the previous finding that the positively worded items that
should be reversed do not belong in the SIAS as they relate
more to extraversion (Eidecker et al., 2010; Rodebaugh et al.,
2006, 2007). The two reversely scored SIAS items stood out in
our sample because of the higher item means and lower
item-total correlations. More importantly, in confirmatory fac-

Table 3b
Abbreviated version of the SIAS.
Item

Original
item

Question

ITC

1
2
3
4
5

2
6
7
9
11

.61
.70
.57
.66
.67

14

7
8
9

15
16
17

10

18

I have difficulty making eye-contact with others

When mixing socially, I am uncomfortable
I feel tense if I am alone with just one other person
I have difficulty talking with other people
I worry about expressing myself in case
I appear awkward
I find myself worrying that I won't know what
to say in social situations
I am nervous mixing with people I don't know well
I feel I'll say something embarrassing when talking
When mixing in a group I find myself worrying
I will be ignored
I am tense mixing in a group
Cronbach's alpha

ITC: item-total correlation.

.76
.75
.69
.69
.77
.92

B
D
I-1
0

.60
.72

H
A
D
S-

5
6

.64

2
3

I get nervous that people are staring at me as

I walk down the street
I fear I may blush when I am with others
I feel self-conscious if I have to enter a
room where others are already seated
I worry about shaking or trembling when
I'm watched by other people
I am worried people will think my behavior odd
I worry I'll lose control of myself in front of
other people
I worry I might do something to attract the
attention of others
When in an elevator I am tense if people
look at me
I get tense when I speak in front of other people
I worry my head will shake or nod in front
of others
I feel awkward and tense if I know people
are watching me
Cronbach's alpha

Low anxious general population

H
A
D
S-

ITC

FN
E

Question

Suspected anxiety disorder

S1
1

Original
item

34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

SI
A
S1
0

Item

total score

Table 3a
Abbreviated version of the SPS (Total sample).

SP

96

Fig. 3. Comparing anxiety and depression questionnaire scores. Note: Bars

represent Mean (SD).

tor analysis a two-factor structure emerged, with the two reversed items being the second factor, with a small covariance
between latent factors. In the reliability analysis, both items
were dropped as they did not contribute to the consistency of
the SIAS scale.
Results confirmed the three-factor structure of social phobia as put forward in Mattick and Clarke (1998). It is important
to realize though that some of the highly specific social phobias
included in the SPS did hardly occur in our sample, e.g., 94% did
not find it difficult to drink something in front of others.
SIAS and SPS are proposed to be used as companion measures that together allow for a comprehensive assessment of
social anxiety (Mattick and Clarke, 1998). In total, the questionnaire amounts up to 40 items, equivalent to two pages of questions. Our proposed abbreviated versions of SIAS and SPS
reduce the burden for participants to 21 items, while still capturing the essence of social interaction anxiety and social phobia in the general population. The abbreviated versions of SPS
and SIAS show excellent discriminant and construct validity,
while specificity analysis showed that gender, marital status
and educational level are important determinants of social anxiety. Our factor analysis including all items of the abbreviated
versions of SPS and SIAS indicated that, in accordance with
other studies (Safren et al., 1998), both constructs assess the
same higher-order construct of social anxiety in both high
and low anxiety subgroups.
There were significant differences in the factor loadings
for SIAS and SPS between individuals from the general population with low to moderate anxiety levels and those individuals with an increased risk of an anxiety disorder (HADSA 12). This means that items may have a different impact
or meaning in persons with high anxiety as compared to
others. Future studies should take into account the symptom
profiles of patients with phobias and social anxiety, as different phobias might be of importance in different patients.
When examining the differences in SIAS 10 and SPS 11 with
respect to sociodemographic characteristics it is important to
be aware of the gender differences as well as differences with
regard to educational level and social situation. It is wellknown that social phobia is more prevalent in unmarried individuals, and is related to lower educational attainment and
female gender (Furmark, 2002) as our results corroborate. An
earlier study did not find gender differences for the original
versions of the SIAS and SPS (Mattick and Clarke, 1998),

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

97

Table 4
Correlations of SPS11 and SIAS10 with other measures.
General population (n = 1447)

SPS11
SIAS10

Suspected anxiety disorder (n = 112)

HADS-a

HADS-d

FNE

BDI-10

HADS-a

HADS-d

FNE

BDI-10

.33
.31

.23
.27

.59
.54

.34
.35

.24
.25

.25
.32

.62
.60

.44
.51

HADS-a: anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS-d: depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; FNE: fear of
negative evaluation; BDI-10: 10-item Beck Depression Inventory; all correlations are significant at a p b .0005 level.
Table 5
SIAS10 and SPS11 scores stratified for gender, partner status, educational level and age.
Men
(mean SD)
General population (n = 1447)
3.4 4.5
SIAS10
SPS11
2.7 3.7

Women
(mean SD)
4.2 4.9
4.2 4.6

Subsample scoring high on general anxiety (n = 112)

8.3 7.2
11.4 9.2
SIAS10
SPS11
6.9 7.4
11.9 9.2

No partner
(mean SD)

Partner
(mean SD)

Low education
(mean SD)

Higher education
(mean SD)

Age (r)

4.5 5.2
3.7 4.4

3.7 4.6
3.1 4.0

5.0 5.4
4.0 5.0

4.3 4.9
3.0 3.8

.01
.06

12.5 10.3
12.3 11.2

9.7 8.2
9.6 8.5

12.1 8.5
12.3 10.0

9.5 8.6
9.1 8.6

.13
.13

Numbers vary due to missing values in the demographic data.

while most studies examining the factor structure of SPS and

SIAS do not examine gender disparities. In addition, our finding that SIAS and SPS scores decrease with age is in accordance with previous studies that report that the highest
lifetime prevalence of social anxiety and social phobia occurs
in the younger individuals (Magee et al., 1996).
The results of the current study should be viewed in light of
several limitations. First, we did not diagnose the high anxiety
group, but only classified them as having a high probability
that they would receive an anxiety diagnosis when properly
examined. Although the HADS is not a gold standard for anxiety,
it is a widely used and well-validated measure of anxiety, and
we used an established cut-off for the HADS-anxiety subscale
(Bjelland et al., 2002) to estimate this probability. Future studies
should incorporate diagnosed patients with phobic and social
anxiety disorder, and should discriminate between the different
symptom profiles of these patients. Also, future studies should
examine the abbreviated versions of SIAS and SPS on their
own, instead of selecting the items from the larger, original
scales. Further, we did not treat participants so we cannot report
on the responsiveness of the abbreviated SPS11 and SIAS10 in a
clinical setting. It has been previously reported that SIAS and
SPS have a good sensitivity to treatment (cognitivebehavioral
therapy; Acarturk et al., 2009; Cox et al., 1998). Whether the
abbreviated SPS and SIAS have similar qualities should be subject of further study.
Strengths of this study include the large sample size from
the general population with a wide age range and equal gender distribution, the fact that quota-sampling took place, and
the use of confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS to examine
the factor structure of the SIAS and SPS.
Concluding, in the general population, social interaction
anxiety and social phobia are two aspects of a higher-order
factor of social anxiety. Social anxiety is validly captured by
the short versions of SPS and SIAS, reducing the questionnaire
burden for participants in epidemiological and biobehavioral
research.

Role of funding source

This was a self-funded survey study. There were no other funding sources.
Conict of interest
All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all participants and all research assistants for their
valuable contribution to building this dataset.

References
Acarturk, C., Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., de Graaf, R., 2009. Psychological
treatment of social anxiety disorder: a meta-analysis. Psychological
Medicine 39, 241254.
Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., 1993. Manual for the Revised Beck Depression Inventory. Psychological Corporation, San Antonio.
Bjelland, I., Dahl, A.A., Haug, T.T., Neckelmann, D., 2002. The validity of the
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 52, 6977.
Blanco, C., Nissenson, K., Liebowitz, M.R., 2001. Social anxiety disorder: recent findings in the areas of epidemiology, etiology, and treatment. Current Psychiatry Reports 3, 273280.
Carleton, R.N., McCreary, D.R., Norton, P.J., Asmundson, G.J.G., 2006. Brief
Fear of Negative Evaluation scale revised. Depression and Anxiety
23, 297303.
Carleton, R.N., Collimore, K.C., Asmundson, G.J., McCabe, R.E., Rowa, K., Antony,
M.M., 2009. Refining and validating the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and
the Social Phobia Scale. Depression and Anxiety 26, E71E81.
Cox, B.J., Ross, L., Swinson, R.P., Direnfeld, D.M., 1998. A comparison of social
phobia outcome measures in cognitivebehavioral group therapy. Behavior Modification 22, 285297.
Crawford, J.R., Henry, J.D., Crombie, C., Taylor, E.P., 2001. Normative data for
the HADS from a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Health Psychology 40, 429434.
Denollet, J., Martens, E.J., Smith, O.R., Burg, M.M., 2009. Efficient assessment
of depressive symptoms and their prognostic value in myocardial infarction patients. Journal of Affective Disorders 120, 105111.
Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Sandercock, P., Frost, C., 2004. Follow-up by mail in
clinical trials: does questionnaire length matter? Controlled Clinical Trials 25, 3152.
Eidecker, J., Glockner-Rist, A., Gerlach, A.L., 2010. Dimensional structure of the
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale according to the analysis of data obtained
with a German version. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 24, 596605.
Furmark, T., 2002. Social phobia: overview of community surveys. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 105, 8493.

98

N. Kupper, J. Denollet / Journal of Affective Disorders 136 (2012) 9098

Habke, A.M., Hewitt, P.L., Norton, G.R., Asmundson, G., 1997. The social phobia
and social interaction anxiety scales: an exploration of the dimensions of
social anxiety and sex differences in structure and relations with pathology. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 19, 2139.
Heidenreich, T., Schermelleh-Engel, K., Schramm, E., Hofmann, S.G., Stangier,
U., 2011. The factor structure of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and
the Social Phobia Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 25, 579583.
Hinz, A., Brhler, E., 2011. Normative values for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the general German population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 71, 7478.
Jepson, C., Asch, D.A., Hershey, J.C., Ubel, P.A., 2005. In a mailed physician
survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58, 103105.
Liebowitz, M.R., 1987. Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry 22, 141173.
Magee, W.J., Eaton, W.W., Wittchen, H.U., McGonagle, K.A., Kessler, R.C.,
1996. Agoraphobia, simple phobia, and social phobia in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry 53, 159168.
Mattick, R.P., Clarke, J.C., 1998. Development and validation of measures of
social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy 36, 455470.
Olivares, J., Garcia-Lopez, L.J., Hidalgo, M.D., 2001. The social phobia scale
and the social interaction anxiety scale: factor structure and reliability
in a Spanish-speaking population. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 19, 6980.
Osman, A., Gutierrez, P.M., Barrios, F.X., Kopper, B.A., Chiros, C.E., 1998. The
Social Phobia and Social Interaction Anxiety Scales: evaluation of psychometric properties. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 20, 249264.
Quintana, J.M., Padierna, A., Esteban, C., Arostegui, I., Bilbao, A., Ruiz, I., 2003.
Evaluation of the psychometric characteristics of the Spanish version of

the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 107, 216221.
Rodebaugh, T.L., Woods, C.M., Heimberg, R.G., Liebowitz, M.R., Schneier, F.R.,
2006. The factor structure and screening utility of the Social Interaction
Anxiety Scale. Psychological Assessment 18, 231237.
Rodebaugh, T.L., Woods, C.M., Heimberg, R.G., 2007. The reverse of social
anxiety is not always the opposite: the reverse-scored items of the Social
Interaction Anxiety Scale do not belong. Behavior Therapy 38, 192206.
Safren, S.A., Turk, C.L., Heimberg, R.G., 1998. Factor structure of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behaviour Research
and Therapy 36, 443453.
Schneier, F.R., Heckelman, L.R., Garfinkel, R., Campeas, R., Fallon, B.A., Gitow,
A., Street, L., Del Bene, D., Liebowitz, M.R., 1994. Functional impairment
in social phobia. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 55, 322331.
Spinhoven, P., Ormel, J., Sloekers, P.P., Kempen, G.I., Speckens, A.E., Van
Hemert, A.M., 1997. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychological Medicine 27, 363370.
Stein, M.B., 2006. An epidemiologic perspective on social anxiety disorder.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67 (Suppl. 12), 38.
Van Balkom, A.J.L.M., De Beurs, E., Hovens, J.E.J.M., Van Vliet, I.M., 2004.
Meetinstrumenten bij angststoornissen. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie 46,
687692.
Watson, D., Friend, R., 1969. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33, 448457.
Zigmond, A.S., Snaith, R.P., 1983. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 67, 361370.
Zubeidat, I., Salinas, J.M., Sierra, J.C., Fernndez-Parra, A., 2007. Psychometric
properties of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and separation criterion between Spanish youths with and without subtypes of social anxiety.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders 21, 603624.